A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Our guest author today is Stephen Lazar, a founding teacher at Harvest Collegiate High School in New York City, where he teaches Social Studies. A National Board certified teacher, he blogs atOutside the Cave. Stephen is also one of the organizers ofInsightful Social Studies, a grass roots campaign of teachers to reform the newly proposed New York State Social Studies standards.

The Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) seek to define “college and career readiness expectations.” Forty-five states have adopted them, and are moving briskly towards full implementation in the coming year. Last January,I wrotethat the standards “represent the greatest opportunity for history teaching and learning to be widely re-imagined since the Committee of Ten set the basic outlines for American education over a hundred years ago.”

While I stand by that statement, with each step towards implementation I see the opportunity being squandered. We cannot possibly continue to move solely in the direction of “college and career readiness” in History & Social Studies education without ensuring that “civic” readiness is valued equally. Additionally, we need to ensure that as states write new curricula, that they contain the proper balance of content, skills, and understandings. New curricula will need to ensure students use an inquiry-based approach to go in depth with a smaller amount of content to gain the wider breadth of skills and dispositions required for civic, college, and career readiness.

All teachers working in Common Core states are currently engaging with the changes demanded by the Common Core. In too many places, this is happening without sufficient time and supports, but it is happening very quickly nonetheless. The U.S. and state Departments of Education have poured over half a billion dollars into the assessments already, and, beginning this year, the results will be high-stakes for students and teachers. All systems are moving full speed ahead to assess core skills without sufficient consideration of the end to which these skills are applied. Two things need to happen to avoid driving off a cliff.

First, we need to ensure we are driving in the right direction. The Council of Chief State School Officers, one of the two groups responsible for the Common Core, quietly released abrief vision statementthis past September, which called for a framework that would provide inquiry-based standards to prepare students for civic life. This is coming far too late. With all the momentum already behind the move towards the College and Career readiness standard, the third C is likely to get lost in the shuffle. It is imperative that our public schools do not forget their core responsibility and civic mission. Primary and secondary schools cannot merely be a farm system for universities and jobs. Rather, as public institutions, they must ensure that a new generation will be prepared for active civic engagement as youth and adults.

Second, we need to remember that backwards design is not a simple linear process. These assessments will exist before anyone has had a chance to develop curricula that will prepare students for the assessments. As any strong teacher knows, the development of a curriculum should occur hand-in-hand with the development of standards and assessments. As Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe remind us inUnderstanding by Design:

…though the three stages present a logic of design, it does not follow that this is a step-by-step process…don’t confuse the logic of the final product with the messy process of design work.

It will take revision to ensure that the assessments actually address the standards, and that the curricula actually prepare students for them. As each is developed, alterations will be necessary at all three stages; it is naive and simplistic to assume that changes to the standards and assessments will not be necessary once implementation occurs.

Even after we ensure we’re headed in the right direction, with the right tools for the job, there are still numerous pitfalls ahead. New York State is currently attempting to make this happen. The New York Board of Regents recently released adraft of a new 9-12 Social Studies Framework. The Curricular Framework recognizes that the purpose of Social Studies “is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”

Towards that end, the Framework claims to allow “students to develop an understanding of concepts and key ideas driven by case studies, analysis of primary and secondary source documents, and an examination of patterns of events in history,” and teachers “to have increased decision making power about how to teach and illustrate conceptual understandings and key ideas to promote student understanding.” On those three points rests the entirety of the work I do with curriculum, teachers, and students. Count me in!

However, the framework undermines these very goals by providing a list of concepts to be fed to students that is far too long. A certain interpretation of history and civics is established through the “Key Ideas,” which are meant to be transferred to students, as opposed to a series of questions or statements that could lead to the inquiry necessary to develop civic responsibilities, as well as demonstrate most of the Common Core standards, including argument, (Writing 1) and comparing texts with different views (Reading 9).

Along with a number of other high-caliber Social Studies teachers in the state, I have founded a group calledInsightful Social Studiesto try and reform the Framework. Our long term goal as teachers is to better help students learn to make sense of our shared societal situations via meaningful social studies instruction that focuses on powerful and relevant questions, deep consideration of crucial issues and authentic civic engagement. Our current struggle is to spark an effective resistance to the “laundry list approach” to social studies standards provided by the current draft NYS Social Studies Framework, and thereby to build greater support for meaningful social studies. We want to see three main things in any adopted curricular framework:

The framework should emphasize questions and inquiry, not answers.

The framework should emphasize transformative depth rather than useless breadth.

The framework should provide the freedom for school communities to choose from a menu of paths and emphases to best serve their students.

We hold that these shifts will demand the actual inquiry, thinking, rigor, and decision making practice that is necessary for students to be prepared for an active Civic life. For example, the current Framework demands that eleventh graders know that “The success of the revolution challenged Americans to establish a system of government that would provide for stability, while beginning to fulfill the promise of the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence.”

This assumes that the Constitution provided stability, an idea challenged by the Civil War, and that it was a step on the road to certain ideals, despite its protection of slavery and the slave trade. It also fails to look at the Constitution in the context of the present day. Instead of starting with the answer, it would be better if we started with questions, such as:

To what extent did the Constitution succeed in fulfilling its stated goals in the Preamble?;

To what extent did the Constitution fulfill the promises of the Declaration of Independence?;

How well does it still work today?;

How might it change to work better?

These are the very questions with which intelligent and engaged adults struggle, as civic decisions are made on a daily basis throughout the United States. It is this civic realm, which is foundational and supportive of the academic and economic realms, that current pedagogical reforms must buttress.

New York City is like no other place. Most people would agree, especially those who have been here for even a visit, and experienced the theaters, events, and 24/7 open markets and stores.But I mean something else. Here in New York City good teachers are being accused of horrible acts of misconduct and incompetency and are being terminated by arbitrators without anyone addressing the violations of due process - the LAW - that is secretly but maliciously undermining the last 11 years of 3020-a trials which are decided without any authority for the employing board or a vote, as required by Education Law 3020-a (2) (a).As a paralegal working with private attorneys with Respondents at 3020-a, I and the attorneys I work with bring this up in motions to dismiss the hearings as without basis in law. So far, no arbitrator has wanted to admit that they cannot find probable cause without a vote of the employing board. But we are still working on this. NYSUT lawyers will not address this issue for any Respondent at 3020-a. For now, I will post a couple of decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals, especially Pell v Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 1:

CITE
TITLE AS: Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of
Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County

OPINION OF THE COURT

Stevens, J.

In separate article 78 proceedings each of the appellants seeks
review of actions taken by the respective Appellate Divisions in matters
affecting the discipline of public employees. In recent years there has been
inadequate understanding and undoubtedly some inconsistency in judicial review
of administrative disciplinary determinations. For that reason it may be useful
to restate some applicable principles.

The source of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is the
Constitution of the State of New York (N. Y. Const., art. VI, §3), which with
certain exceptions limits the court's power to the review of questions of law.
For the purposes of any judicial review of administrative action, the statutes
also limit the scope of review in the Supreme Court or in this court to
questions of law and the extent of the sanction imposed (CPLR 7803).

In article 78 proceedings,

"the doctrine is well settled, that neither
the Appellate Division nor the Court of Appeals has power to upset the
determination of an administrative tribunal on a question of fact;
. . . 'the courts have no right to review the facts generally as to weight of
evidence, beyond seeing to it that there is "substantial evidence.""'
(Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, p. 460; 1 N.
Y. Jur., Administrative Law, §§ 177, 185; see Matter of Halloran v. Kirwan, 28 NY2d 689, 690 [dissenting opn. of Breitel,
J.]).

"The approach is the same when the issue concerns the
exercise of discretion by the administrative tribunal: [*231] The courts cannot interfere unless there is no rational basis for
the exercise of discretion or the action complained of is 'arbitrary and
capricious."' (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals,
pp. 460-461; see, also, 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 7803.04 et seq.; 1 N. Y. Jur., Administrative Law, §§ 177, 184; Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329).

The arbitrary or capricious test chiefly "relates
to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified . . . and whether the administrative action is without foundation in
fact." (1 N. Y. Jur., Administrative Law, § 184, p. 609).

Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally
taken without regard to the facts. In Matter of Colton v. Berman (supra, p. 329) this court (per Breitel, J.) said "the proper
test is whether there is a rational basis for the administrative orders, the review not being of determinations made
after quasi-judicial hearings required by statute or law." (Emphasis supplied.) Where, however,
a hearing is held, the determination must be supported by substantial evidence
(CPLR 7803, subd. 4); and where a determination is made and the person acting
has not acted in excess of his jurisdiction, in violation of lawful procedure,
arbitrarily, or in abuse of his discretionary power, including discretion as to
the penalty imposed, the courts have no alternative but to confirm his
determination (CPLR 7803, subd. 3; Matter of Procaccino v. Stewart, 25 NY2d 301; but see Matter of Picconi v. Lowery, 35 AD2d 693, affd. 28 NY2d 962). Rationality is what is reviewed
under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary and capricious
standard. (Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 24 NY2d 174,
178; 1 N. Y. Jur, Administrative Law, § 184.)

In Matter of Weber v. Town
of Cheektowaga (284 N. Y. 377, 380),
this court, in reversing the order of the Appellate Division and reinstating
the determination of the Town Board, dismissing petitioner for intoxication
after an administrative disciplinary proceeding, said that "the
determination upon the facts is for the Town Board, and such determination will
not be set aside by the courts unless it is unsupported by proof sufficient to
satisfy a reasonable man, of all the facts necessary to be proved in order to
authorize the determination". (See, also, Matter of Barsky v. Board of Regents, 305 N. Y. 89, affd. [*232] 347 U. S. 442; CPLR 7803, subd. 4.) "It is well settled that
a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it
reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and
unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion [citations omitted]."
(Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, 1
NY2d 508, 520.)

The scope of CPLR 7803 in providing for judicial review of
administrative sanctions was unclear initially. The question arose as to
whether it called for a review as broad as that which the Appellate Division would
have conducted of a determination at Special Term, or limited review to such
abuses of discretion as were tantamount to a true question of law. The courts,
however, laid the doubts to rest and interpreted the statute so as to limit
judicial review to such abuses of discretion (Matter of Stolz v. Board of
Regents, 4 AD2d 361; Matter of Russell v.
Stewart, 30 AD2d 749, 750).

The statutes could have granted a broader or narrower power of
review to the Supreme Court, including the Appellate Division. With respect to
this court, however, the limitation is constitutional and the power of review
limited to questions of law. As the statutes have been construed, however, the
scope of review in this court and the Appellate Division would seem to be the
same (Matter of Bovino v. Scott, 22 NY2d 214, 216).

Generally speaking, discretionary issues are not issues of law,
but even in such cases it may be urged that the bounds of discretion were
exceeded. "[T]he inquiry is always pertinent whether in any particular
case, discretion was abused, just as inquiry is always pertinent whether there
is any evidence to sustain a finding of fact." (Cohen and Karger, Powers
of the New York Court of Appeals, § 159, p. 619).

"Prior to the adoption of subdivision 5-a of section 1296 of
the Civil Practice Act (L. 1955, ch. 661), the courts had no power to review
the penalty, punishment or measure of discipline imposed by an administrative
agency (Matter of Barsky v. Board of Regents, 305 N. Y. 89, affd. 374 U.
S. 442)." (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 363,
supra.) Section 5-a permits the courts to review the measure of discipline
imposed by administrative agencies, but, as noted by Mr. Justice Halpern,
"this grant of power must be reasonably construed in the light of the
settled principles governing the relationship [*233] between the courts and administrative agencies.

. . . . We believe that, reasonably construed, the statute
authorizes us to set aside a determination by an administrative agency, only if
the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the
offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's
sense of fairness." (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, supra, p.
364; see, also, Public Papers of Governor Harriman, Memorandum dated April 25,
1955, filed with Assembly Bill, Introductory No. 2834; N. Y. State Bar Assn.
Memorandum No. 2834 in support of Bill 2834, N. Y. State Legis. Annual [1955],
p. 32; Matter of Mitthauer v.
Patterson, 8 NY2d 37.) The view
expressed above still controls. (Matter of Tannenholz v. Waterfront Comm. of
N. Y. Harbor, 36 AD2d 930, affd. 30 NY2d 668 [Jasen and Breitel, JJ.,
dissenting in opn. by Jasen, J.].) In Matter of Donohue v. New York State Police (19 NY2d 954) we held the sanction of dismissal
of petitioner excessive as a matter of law and remanded the proceeding.
"CPLR 7803(3) reenacts subdivision 5-a of Civil Practice Act section 1296,
authorizing courts to review the measure of discipline imposed by the
respondent agency or officer." (8 Weinstein-Korn- Miller, N. Y. Civ.
Prac., par. 7803.15; Matter of Walker v.
Murphy, 15 NY2d 650, 651.)

Of course, as discussed earlier, whether there is evidence, in an
administrative proceeding, to support a finding of guilt is a question of law
which this court may review. But, where the finding of guilt is confirmed and
punishment has been imposed, the test is whether such punishment is "'so
disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to
be shocking to one's sense of fairness'." (Matter of McDermott v.
Murphy, 15 AD2d 479, affd. 12 NY2d 780; Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, supra).

Finally, in Matter of Bovino v.
Scott (22 NY2d 214, 216,
supra), this court (per Bergan, J. with Scileppi, Breitel and Jasen, JJ.,
dissenting in opn. by Jasen, J.) flatly declared: "Both the Appellate
Division and this court are vested with power, pursuant to CPLR 7803 (subd. 3),
to deal as a matter of law with the measure of discipline imposed on a
subordinate civil service employee [citations omitted]" (emphasis
supplied).

In light of the history of the statutes and the afore-mentioned
holdings, the sanctions to be imposed may be considered to be [*234] either a legal matter or a discretionary matter, the latter
subject to review only as a matter of law regarding the propriety of the
discretion exercised. When an administrative abuse of discretion is determined
to have occurred, it may be appropriate more often to remand the matter for the
fixing of the sanction by the agency initially exercising the power unless in
the circumstances peculiar to a particular case we deem the record sufficient
to permit the reviewing court to assess the permissible measure of punishment
warranted. (Cf. Matter of Dillard v. New
York City Tr. Auth., 34 AD2d 995, where the
record was found insufficient to permit a determination on the question of the
review of the Authority's dismissal of petitioner for health reasons and the
proceeding remanded. After a rehearing, the determination was confirmed, the
Appellate Division concluding that the decision to dismiss "was not
arbitrary and capricious and was based upon substantial evidence" Matter of Dillard v. New York City Tr. Auth., 39 AD2d 759, 760.)

Of course, terminology like "shocking to one's sense of
fairness" reflects a purely subjective response to the situation presented
and is hardly satisfactory. Yet its usage has persisted for many years and
through many cases. Obviously, such language reflects difficulty in
articulating an objective standard. But this is not unusual in the common-law
process until, by the impact of sufficient instances, a more analytical and
articulated standard evolves. The process must in any event be evolutionary. At
this time, it may be ventured that a result is shocking to one's sense of
fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual
subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence,
failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the
agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the
derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of
deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a
reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons
similarly employed. There is also the element that the sanctions reflect the
standards of society to be applied to the offense involved. Thus, for a single
illustrative contrast, habitual lateness or carelessness, resulting in
substantial monetary [*235] loss, by a lesser employee, will not be as
seriously treated as an offense as morally grave as larceny, bribery, sabotage,
and the like, although only small sums of money may be involved.

There is no doubt that the reason for the enactment of the statute
(CPLR 7803) was to make it possible, where warranted, to ameliorate harsh
impositions of sanctions by administrative agencies. That purpose should be
fulfilled by the courts not only as a matter of legislative intention, but also
in order to accomplish what a sense of justice would dictate. Consideration of
the length of employment of the employee, the probability that a dismissal may
leave the employee without any alternative livelihood, his loss of retirement
benefits, and the effect upon his innocent family, all play a role, but only in
cases where there is absent grave moral turpitude and grave injury to the
agency involved or to the public weal. But deliberate, planned, unmitigated
larceny, or bribe taking, or demonstrated lack of qualification for the
assigned job is not of that kind. Paramount too, in cases of sanctions for
agencies like the police, is the principle that it is the agency and not the
courts which, before the public, must justify the integrity and efficiency of
their operations.

Attention is now directed to the separate proceedings listed
above.

Matter of Pell v. Board of Education.

Charges were preferred against Pell that on seven occasions he
absented himself from his teaching duties without permission, and thereafter
falsely certified in writing that he was ill on such occasions and requested
payment therefor. Earlier, Pell had requested and been refused permission to
absent himself three days each month (November through May inclusive) in order
to attend the New York University Senate of which he was a member.

After a full hearing, Pell was found guilty of: (1)
insubordination: (2) conduct unbecoming a teacher; and (3) neglect of duty. He
was dismissed from his position as a tenured teacher.

The Appellate Division, two Justices dissenting, modified the
determination to strike the penalty of dismissal and provide in lieu thereof
suspension without pay to the date of the order. The dissenting Justices voted
to affirm the dismissal. Both [*236] parties appealed. We are unanimous in our view
that the cross appeal of Pell should be dismissed since he is not a party
aggrieved by the modification of the Appellate Division.

The only question remaining is whether the modification with
respect to punishment is warranted in light of the principles earlier
discussed. It is concluded that the order of the Appellate Division should be
reversed and the determination of the board reinstated.

Pell had been granted a year's leave with full pay during the
1969-1970 school year which immediately preceded his requests here. Upon denial
of his application for a total of 21 days' leave, he had a right of appeal
which he elected not to exercise. In disregard of his professional obligations
and of his superior's decision, he absented himself from his teaching duties,
thereby requiring replacements, falsely certified to being ill on those
occasions, and was paid therefor. Such irresponsibility makes it impossible to
conclude that the discipline imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the
offense.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the
determination of the board reinstated, without costs.

Matter of Muldoon v. Mayor of Syracuse.

Following the preferral of charges, and after a full hearing,
petitioner-respondent (petitioner) was found guilty of firing his revolver from
a window of the Public Safety Building while on duty; of refusing a request to
submit to blood analysis (such refusal creating a presumption of intoxication
under the applicable police department rules and regulations); of conduct
unbecoming an officer; and, of failure to file a written report, as required of
any officer who discharges a firearm in the performance of duty. The acts for
which petitioner was found guilty violated specific sections of the Rules and
Regulations of the Police Department. Although petitioner testified that he had
no recollection of the firing of his revolver, that fact was proven by other
testimony. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the
findings, the hearing officer recommended dismissal, and thereafter, petitioner
was discharged by respondent Chief of Police. The Appellate Division modified
to reduce the penalty to suspension until the date of entry of its order. [*237]

At first blush, the punishment imposed might seem excessive or
unduly harsh; however, policemen hold a sensitive position in a community and
have an obligation to aid in safeguarding and protecting the community which
they serve. Armed as they are with dangerous or deadly weapons, the use of such
a weapon without conscious recollection of such use, could pose a serious
future threat of possible harm to civilians and others.

The Chief of Police as the person ultimately responsible for
effective discipline must seek to protect both the community and the police
force from dangers reasonably foreseen and risks which might become serious
liabilities, or have grave consequences. If, in the exercise of his considered
judgment, he imposes punishment, the exercise of his reasonable discretion
should not be disturbed unless the punishment is so disproportionate to the
offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of McDermott v.
Murphy, 15 AD2d 479, affd. 12 NY2d 780, supra).

It cannot be said as a matter of law that the Chief of Police
abused his discretion by the action taken. The discretionary power exercised by
the Appellate Division in modifying the penalty is not warranted by the record.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the
determination of respondent Chief of Police reinstated, without costs. (See Matter of Bernardini v. Port of N. Y. Auth., 34 NY2d 750.)

Matter of Chilson v. Board of Education.

The order of the Appellate Division which reversed a judgment of
the Supreme Court and reinstated the determination of respondents should be
affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, a Senior Construction Inspector with the Board of
Education, was indicted, charged with grand larceny in the first degree, bribe
receiving and receiving unlawful gratuities. On May 5, 1969, petitioner was
suspended for conduct unbecoming his position and "prejudicial to the good
order, efficiency and discipline of the service." The original
specifications of misconduct served upon petitioner were taken from the
indictment and at petitioner's request, the disciplinary proceeding was
adjourned pending disposition of the criminal prosecution. On January 18, 1971,
petitioner pleaded guilty [*238] to the misdemeanor of receiving unlawful
gratuities and on February 9, 1971, at sentence, he was placed on probation.
The specifications were amended, without objection, to reflect the plea and
disposition.

At the hearing respondent's counsel placed in evidence a certified
copy of the indictment and a certified copy of the clerk's minutes of the plea
and disposition. Petitioner did not testify.

The plea of guilty and the sentence provide substantial evidence
for the dismissal. Indeed, petitioner only contends that the penalty of
dismissal constitutes excessive punishment.

Petitioner argues that with a record of 21 years of unblemished
service, dismissal with its resultant loss of pension and retirement rights, is
too drastic a penalty in light of the crime for which he stands convicted.

Petitioner, a public servant, was guilty of a breach of trust and
a failure to faithfully and honestly perform the duties of his position. His
position was a sensitive one and the misconduct serious. The question is not
whether we might have imposed another or different penalty, but whether the
agency charged with disciplinary responsibility reasonably acted within the
scope of its powers. The answer must be in the affirmative (see Matter of Walker v. Murphy, 15 NY2d 650; Matter of Boris v. Murphy, 19 NY2d 873). Pensions are not only
compensation for services rendered, but they serve also as a reward for
faithfulness to duty and honesty of performance.

Matter of Best v. Ronan

This is an appeal by respondent from a judgment of the Appellate
Division which modified the determination of respondent by substituting for
dismissal of the petitioner a suspension without pay for a period from the date
of dismissal to six months from the date of the entry of the order of
modification, roughly three and one-half years as of this appeal.

The charge of "nickeling", or the mishandling of funds
belonging to the New York City Transit Authority (Authority), was established
by the evidence, and the finding of guilt confirmed by the Appellate Division.
Involved is a sum which by estimate of the Authority amounts to $1.26,
allegedly appropriated over a period of 18 days by the use of coins given in
change to passengers which, when deposited in the coin box, [*239] registered a lesser sum than the actual value, thereby permitting
petitioner to appropriate the difference.

The single question is whether dismissal was reasonable and proper
under the circumstances. Or, phrased differently, was the discretionary power
of review of the Appellate Division properly exercised as a matter of law? In
our view it was not.

The ingenuity of the scheme used indicates a carefully thought out
plan which, reasonably, could well have been operative beyond the period of
direct observation and detection. While the penalty and the resulting
forfeiture of pension undoubtedly will result in hardship, it cannot be said as
a matter of law that the sanction imposed by the Authority for theft was so
harsh and excessive, so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to
one's conscience. Here there was a violation of a trust and a breach of duty which,
if condoned and imitated, could wreak havoc with the entire system.

While heretofore the courts have, in some instances, considered
prior good records of service and revoked a sentence of dismissal, substituting
therefor a lesser penalty (see Matter of Mitthauer v.
Patterson, 8 NY2d 37, supra), it
is becoming increasingly clear that the nature of the misconduct charge when
weighed with the action taken, where such action is reasonably within the
permissible scope of the disciplining agency, must be accorded greater weight
or recognition.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and the
determination of respondent Authority reinstated, without costs.

Matter of Abbott v. Phillips.

Abbott became employed as a police officer September 1, 1968. He
was dismissed September 15, 1971, after having been found guilty of dereliction
of his duties as a police officer.

On August 13, 1971, Abbott sustained certain injuries in an
off-duty accident and remained on "sick leave" until September 4,
1971, when he returned to work. Upon his return, Abbott was charged with a
violation of the rules and regulations of the department in that, while on sick
leave, he, on two different dates, engaged in other employment as a delivery
man for a private firm. Abbott received his pay as an officer for the time he
was on sick leave. At times other than those specified in [*240] the charges, Abbott while on sick leave, was not at home during
the workday as required by departmental regulations.

After a finding of guilt on the charges, the Village Board of
Trustees (appellants herein) were free to consider Abbott's prior record in
determining the punishment to be imposed. In June, 1969, he had pleaded guilty
to misconduct charges in that he wrongfully discharged his revolver in a public
place, while not in the line of duty, and failed to report the incident as
required. However, the board, upon petitioner's objection, erroneously excluded
proof of the prior violation and discharged Abbott solely on the basis of the
charges for which he was on trial. Both sides now agree this was error. The
question is whether, in considering this offense alone, the board acted
properly in the discharge of its responsibility, or whether the matter should
be remanded to the board in order that they might consider such prior violation
with respect to the present punishment.

This article 78 proceeding was originally commenced in Supreme
Court and transferred to the Appellate Division, which modified on the law the
determination of the board by reducing the penalty to suspension for 20 days
without pay.

In Matter of Mitthauer v.
Patterson (8 NY2d 37, 42, supra)
this court affirmed a modification by the Appellate Division, reducing a
penalty of dismissal to a six-month suspension. In so doing, the majority observed
that "this woman had over 20 years of service with a good record and would
lose many valuable rights if dismissed." Assuming that was the basis for
the affirmance, the factual picture in this case presents no such redeeming
feature. In the cited case, the majority held that the court, in the course of
its judicial inquiry as to the abuse of discretion, had complete power over the
subject. (But see Little v. New York City
Tr. Auth., 28 NY2d 719, where on
a similar factual pattern, a totally different result was reached.)

A reduction of the penalty here, the determination of guilt having
been confirmed, is not warranted. As a matter of law, the modification is not
justified since it does not appear from the record that the board abused its
discretion in fixing the punishment. Unless an irrationality appears or the
punishment shocks one's conscience, sanctions imposed by an administrative
agency should be upheld. [*241]

The judgment should be reversed and the determination of the board
reinstated, without costs to either party. (See Matter of Bernardini v. Port of N. Y. Auth., 34 NY2d 750, supra.)

It may be noted that the foregoing cases fall into one general
classification as to the nature of the problems posed. However, it must always
be kept in mind that the discussion above involved only disciplinary sanctions
imposed internally in various administrative agencies and does not cover
discipline imposed upon regulated persons or entities outside an administrative
agency. That is not to say that the discussion may not be relevant to the
issues raised in cases of the latter kind. Moreover, in every case there must
be sensitive distinction among agencies based upon their responsibilities to
the public. Thus, compare a police agency with a municipal electric utility.
And, of course, always there must be a persisting discretion exercised to avoid
unnecessary hardship to erring human beings not compelled by a supervening
public interest. The determinations in these cases attempt to express that
sensitivity.

In Matter of Pell: On respondent's appeal: Judgment reversed,
without costs, and determination of Board of Education reinstated.

On petitioner's appeal: Appeal dismissed, without costs.

In Matter of Muldoon: Judgment reversed, without costs, and
determination of respondents-appellants reinstated.

In Matter of Chilson: Order affirmed, with costs.

In Matter of Best: Judgment reversed, without costs, and
determination of respondent-appellant reinstated.

In Matter of Abbott: Judgment reversed, without costs, and determination
of respondents-appellants reinstated.

Education officials are investigating seven other cases of educators coaching students on rating their schools highly. Top marks lead to principal salary bonuses and decisions on school closings.

PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013, 10:31 PM

UPDATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2013, 2:30 AM

9

8

0

Sana Nasser, Principal of Harry S Truman High School next to the school's new
swimming pool. She has encouraged her students to rate her school high in annual reviews.

Education officials are investigating seven cases of ethical misconduct on the heels of a Daily News exclusive that revealed a top Bronx principal coached students to give their school glowing annual reviews.

A day after Harry S Truman High School Principal Sana Nasser was exposed for manipulating student survey results, whistleblowers from two more schools came forward — showing that officials are instructing parents on how to fill out school surveys as a way to boost their letter grades.

At Public School 64 in the East Village, Principal Marlon Hosang assured families that the school’s parent coordinator and members of the parent association would be “stationed in the library to assist you” on filling out the surveys.

“Remember, we consider anything less than ‘strongly agree’ a failure,” read a letter signed by Hosang and the assistant principal, Daniela D’Arcangelo.

“We fell .9 (points) short of our goal last year of a letter grade of B primarily because of those of you who failed to complete the survey, yet are happy with our work. We cannot allow this to happen again.”

JEVANS

The Daily News exposed Harry S Truman High School Principal Sana Nasser for coaching students on reporting high grades in school reviews.

Maria Vargas, whose son is a fourth-grader at the school, said she felt stressed over the ordeal. “I already filled out the survey, but I don’t like the pressure,” said Vargas, 34. “It’s bad enough with the citywide tests.”

At PS 6 on the upper East Side, an email sent to families Wednesday from a class parent reads, “Let’s do our part and make sure our school gets an ‘A’ grade on our DOE report card.”

The annual school environment survey offers another way for city officials to evaluate progress from the point of view of students and parents.

The results are used to decide whether schools should close — or if principals deserve a bonus.

School officials would not reveal the remaining four schools. Neither Hosang nor PS 6 Principal Lauren Fontana — who each earn roughly $128,000 a year, returned calls or emails for comment.

“The school survey code of ethics explicitly states that it is inappropriate for school staff to influence or suggest how respondents complete the survey,” said agency spokeswoman Erin Hughes.

Testimonials From Some of Our Clients

“Dear Betsy,
I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert advice throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn’t even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent
Maria G;

Alexandra F.

Dear Betsy,

I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for CONSTANTLY being there for me throughout such a tumultuous time in my life. I have been battling severe harassment at my place of work for months now, and you have advised me through every single second of it. I would not have had the strength or confidence to battle such an evil administration without your help. You have answered my phone calls from 7AM through nearly midnight with any and all of my concerns. I have called you countless times to just vent, or even cry, and you have been there with open arms to pivot my negative anticipations into positive advocacy. You have gone above and beyond your line of duty to help me, and for that, I can never repay you. You have changed the outcome of my life, and led me to justice. More importantly, you have led me to happiness again, for which I am eternally grateful. As I am getting older, I am realizing that there are many bad people in this world, but you are TRULY one of the good ones. When one finds a great person in life with their true best interest at heart, they should hold onto that and take their word as bond. My last statement truly defines you, an expert in what you do, as well as a 24 hour support system. You are amazing Betsy, and my life would truly not be the same if you had not stepped into it!!!!!

Thank you again for EVERYTHING you have done for me. Your advisement and care will be carried in my heart for the rest of my life.

Alexandra F.

Tollyne D.

After 18 years of service, the general consensus as a union member is that you cannot trust people and you have to be extremely careful who you talk to. I was brought up being told that I should be sure that the person I am speaking to is knowledgeable and to be TRUSTED, and Betsy Combier is such a person. She consistently proves that she is trustworthy, very knowledgeable and caring, time and time again.

Tollyne D.

David P.

To whom this may concern,
I want to recommend Betsy Combier as the best person you could have in your corner. From the first day I met Betsy I felt secure. I had the misfortune of having to go through a 3020a hearing and with help of Ms. Combier my job was secure, I don’t know where I would be without Betsy’s help and support. She is still assisting me with my federal case. I could not recommend Betsy any higher, she is a person of her word, and her expertise is important and necessary for everyone without any problem.
David P.

Jason R.

I met Betsy Combier approximately about 5 years ago, as a result of a recommendation from a colleague. Since then she has been an advocate of mine ever since, and has worked above and beyond my expectation. Betsy fights against the wrongdoing of public education officials in New York City. Throughout the extremely difficult arbitration, Betsy fought for my unalienable rights, even though my former principal did everything in her power to tarnish my name and damage my career.
Betsy is not an attorney yet she has the experience and knowledge that is above and beyond that of an attorney and follows through on all issues. She is truly an angel from heaven above, and a quality public defender.

Laura B.

I was charged with a 3020A in October 2016 after receiving three developing ratings in a row. I called numerous law firms as well as my union. Most people who I talked to said that I should settle because I was fighting a losing battle. A lawyer told me that anyone that says you can win a 3020A is a liar. I heard about Betsy from a teacher placed in my building who was going through the 3020A process. I hired Betsy and one of the Attorneys who works with her and her company, and won my case! Betsy saved my job and saved my life because she was emotionally supportive at a time when I needed it the most. Betsy goes above and beyond for her clients. She is readily available day and night for her clients. Betsy’s knowledge of education law is exceptional and she was a great help to my attorney. Betsy is relentless and fights hard for her clients.

ADVOCATZ

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Betsy Combier

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

- Aristotle

Important Numbers

Amy Arundel (ATR Point Person) 212-510-6468

UFT www.uft.org

OPI (Problem Code) 1-718-935-2666

UFT Certification Services 1-212-420-1830

Teachers REtirement System 1-888-869-2877

Mandated Reporters 1-800-635-1522

Staten Island UFT 1-718-605-1400

Brooklyn UFT 1-718-852-4900

Bronx UFT 1-718-379-6200

Manhattan UFT 1-212-598-6800

Queens UFT 1-718-275-4400

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

Rally November 2008 at Tweed

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

Thousands of teachers and school staff members rally at Tweed

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.